Critical

Very Low

Low

Middle

Acceptable

Sub-Saharan Africa

South Asia

East Asia and Pacific

Latin America and Caribbean

Central AsiaMiddle East and North Africa

EuropeNorth America

64

69

86

88

9192

9796

70

7171

80

90

9697

99

8888

88

93

99+

99

94

99

2004 2009 2015

BASICCAPABILITIES

INDEX

The 2009 Basic Capabilities Index (BCI) constructed by Social Watch shows that, even without the not-yet-registered impact of the world economic crisis, most countries in the world are at risk of not achieving their poverty reduction com-mitments. A significant proportion of the 175 countries considered (42.3%) obtained a BCI rating of low, very low or criti-cal, and barely half the countries for which data is available made progress (52.7%). Countries that started from a very low level are regressing, which worsens the gap and increases the disparity between countries and regions. Only Europe and North America could potentially reach acceptable BCI values by the year 2015. Southern Asia is progressing fast, but its starting point is so low that it will still be far from acceptable in the coming decade. Latin America and the Caribbean are not progressing at all and 41% of the countries that have regressed on the BCI are in sub-Saharan Africa. The numbers reveal a dramatic situation of global inequity.

All Quiet

on the Poverty Front

Basic capaBilities index - forecast By region

IF ThE CurrENT rATES OF PrOgrESS ArE mAINTAINEd, By 2015 SuB-SAhArAN AFrICA WILL BArELy CrEEP uP TO ThE “vEry LOW” LEvEL, WITh A BCI vALuE OF A mErE 71 POINTS, SOuTh ASIA WILL NOT EvEN rEACh ThE “LOW” LEvEL AS ThEy WILL ONLy OBTAIN 80 POINTS ON ThE BCI, WhILE EAST ASIA ANd PACIFIC WILL juST ABOuT rEACh ThE mIddLE LEvEL WITh 90 POINTS. mIddLE EAST ANd NOrTh AFrICA ANd CENTrAL ASIA WOuLd STArT TO AP-PrOACh ThE mIddLE LEvEL (97 ANd 96 POINTS, rESPECTIvELy), WhILE NOrTh AmErICA ANd EurOPE ArE ThE ONLy rEgIONS ThAT COuLd rEACh AN ACCEPTABLE BCI LEvEL (99+ ANd 99 POINTS, rESPECTIvELy).

2009

99+

98

93

88

83

78

73

68

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

SOUTH ASIA

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

EUROPE

NORTH AMERICA

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

CENTRAL ASIA

LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

MIDDLE EAST ANDM

LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

99

99

88

71

70

94

93

By comBining what each region has reached in Bci

points (represented as height in the graph) and the

further steps still needed to achieve 99+ in Bci points

(that is, the distance to overcome to reach an “ac-

ceptaBle” level) a relative position is oBtained for

each region and the graph looks like a slope. thus,

the Bci level would Be the height of the mountain

while the effort required (*) is the distance to the

top. the effort required from the climBers, repre-

senting different regions, to reach acceptaBle Bci

levels is far from Being equal.

the countries with low Bci not only have a great-

er distance to cover to achieve a Basic dignity for

all their people, But they face a steep slope. imag-

ine a country where nine out of ten children go

to school. the distance to the education goal is

just 10% and to cut By half the numBer of children

without education the government only needs to

increase the numBer of teachers and school facili-

ties By 5%. in a country where only 20% of children

go to school, the gap to the goal is 80% and to cut

it By half implies that the government has to Build

schools and hire teachers for 40% of the children,

which means treBling the present capacity. and that

would still leave 40% of the children out of school,

which is far from acceptaBle.

the universal declaration of human rights com-

mits all countries to achieve “dignity for all”, But

the means to do that are not there where they are

needed the most.

Evolution by countries and regions

In 2009, almost half the countries of the world (42.1%) have a BCI value that is low, very low or critical. At the current rate of progress, in 2015 the average BCI value of the countries in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa will barely be at the very low level, and all the other regions of the world except for Europe and North America will still fall far short of the acceptable level.

Since 2005, less than half of the countries of the world have made progress (43%) and almost one fourth have re-gressed. A third of the countries (33%) have not managed to raise their BCI value by more than 1% and only one out of every six countries (18%) shows significant progress.

There is an enormous gap in living conditions between the region with the highest average BCI (North America with 99 points) and the regions with the worst averages (sub-Sa-haran Africa with 70 points and South Asia with 71).

South Asia was the region with the worst BCI average in 2004. It is making fast progress, but the situation is still extremely critical.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the situation is similarly critical, as shown by an average BCI value of only 70 points, and the average evolution shows an improvement of a mere 0.6%. At this rate it would take centuries to achieve the social development goals internationally agreed for 2015! East Asia and the Pacific, like Central Asia, show some re-sults in improving their basic capabilities, with an average progress of around 2% in each. North America, the mid-dle East and North Africa all registered rates of progress of 3% and more, but this is less remarkable because they departed from a better situation and the effort required is therefore less.

The latest data gives cause for concern about Latin Amer-ica and the Caribbean, a region that already ranked low in terms of basic capabilities, and even regressed (by -0.2%). The only regions that have remained at the accept-able level on the index are Europe and North America.

MorE EfforT rEquIrED froM ThE wEAkEST

*effort required: ThE EFFOrT NEEdEd TO rEACh ThE OBjECTIvE IS ArrIvEd AT By AN EQuATION IN WhICh CurrENT vALuE ON ThE BCI IS dIvIdEd By AN ESTImATION OF ThE rELATIvE dISTANCE ThAT STILL rEmAINS TO BE COvErEd. ThIS rELATIvE dISTANCE IS rEPrESENTEd By ThE PrOPOrTION BETWEEN WhAT EACh rEgION IS LACkINg IN OrdEr TO rEACh AN ACCEPTABLE BCI vALuE ANd ThE mAxImum INEQuALITy ThAT ThErE IS BETWEEN rEgIONS (ThE 28.7 POINTS ON ThE BCI BETWEEN NOrTh AmErICA ANd SuB-SAhArAN AFrICA).TO mAkE ThIS INFOrmATION ACCESSIBLE TO ThE rEAdEr ThE rESuLT IS muLTIPLIEd By 100 SO IT APPEArS AS A PErCENTAgE rAThEr ThAN A PrOPOrTION. hENCE ThE grAdIENT ThAT SEPA-rATES ThE rEgIONS rEPrESENTS ThE ABSOLuTE dIFFErENCE ON ThE INdEx (hEIghT) ANd ThE rELATIvE dISAdvANTAgE OF rEgrESSION (dISTANCE) rESuLTINg FrOm ThE POSITION OF EACh rEgION IN ThE rACE.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

BCI

190 countries in total

BCI 2009

18.9%36 countries

11.1%21 countries

12.1%23 countries

31.6%60 countries

26.3%50 countries

Number of countries in each BCI level by reference year

BCI LEvEL

155 countries in total

21.3%33 countries

10.3%16 countries

14.9%23 countries

BCI 2004

11.6%18 countries

41,9%65 countries

Acceptablemedium

Lowvery Low

Critical

Social Watch developed the BCI as an instrument to monitor the

evolution of basic indicators and to make comparisons between and

within countries. This is a summary-index that compares and classi-

fies countries according to their progress in social development by

evaluating their situation in terms of minimum basic capabilities

– structural dimensions that represent the indispensable starting

conditions to guarantee an adequate quality of life.

The index identifies situations of poverty and it consists of three

indicators: the percentage of children reaching fifth grade, survival

until the age of 5, and the percentage of births attended by skilled

personnel*. These indicators express different dimensions that are

considered in internationally agreed development objectives (edu-

cation, infant health and reproductive health). The BCI does not use

income as an indicator. It defines poverty not in terms of money,

but in different aspects of people’s actual condition and their great-

er or lesser possibility of having their human rights fulfilled.

The BCI is based on the latest available information for each coun-

try and it is easy to construct and can be applied at the sub-national

and municipal levels. Since it does not include income as one of its

components, it can be built without having to resort to costly house-

hold surveys, which is the problem with indexes based on income,

such as the World Bank measure of the number of people living on

less than one or two dollars a day, or the UNDP’s Human Develop-

ment Index, which combines income with health and education

indicators. Precisely because it dispenses with income as an indica-

tor, the BCI has proved to be highly correlated with the measure of

other human capabilities and, in particular, the 41 different indi-

cators used to measure progress towards the different Millennium

Development Goals agreed internationally in the year 2000. Con-

trary to the MDGs, though, the BCI can be used to assign a value to

each country, so comparisons can be made with other countries and

the progress can be evaluated over time.

The BCI indicators show maximum values when all women are at-

tended by skilled health personnel at delivery, when no child drops

out of school before completing the fifth grade and when infant

mortality is brought down to its lowest possible level of less than

five deaths among children under five years old per thousand live

births. These indicators are closely linked to the other basic capa-

Basic Capabilities Index: a starting point

bilities the members of a society should have, capabilities that re-

inforce each other to make better individual and collective develop-

ment possible.

The 2009 BCI was calculated for 175 countries, and these are grouped

in various categories**. The countries in the most serious situation

are those with a Critical BCI (less than 70 points). In the Very Low

BCI category (from 70 to 79 points) there are countries facing major

obstacles to achieving well-being for the population. The countries

with Low BCI (from 80 to 89 points) are at an intermediate level as

regards the satisfaction of basic needs, and their performance varies

in some dimensions of development. The countries that have pro-

gressed and now satisfy most or all the population’s basic capabili-

ties are in the two categories with the highest values: Medium BCI

(from 90 to 97) and Acceptable (more than 98 points and more).

The BCI of a country approaches 100 when there is universal access

to the three minimum levels of social coverage mentioned above.

These factors indicate the satisfaction of the most fundamental of

all social rights, which are access to adequate health care, and uni-

versal, good quality basic education.

Social Watch understands that a BCI value close to the maximum

reflects the “dignity for all” proclaimed by the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights. Reaching this level does not mean that a country

has attained all the goals of social well-being that are desirable in a

society; it merely indicates a starting point towards those goals.

*ThE BCI WAS OrIgINATEd IN ThE QuALITy OF LIFE INdEx dEvELOPEd By ThE NON-gOvErNmENT OrgANIzATION ACTION FOr ECONOmIC rEFOrmS (PhILIPPINES), WhICh WAS dErIvEd FrOm ThE CAPABILITy POvErTy mEASurE (CPm) PrOPOSEd By PrOFESSOr AmArTyA SEN ANd POPuLArIzEd AS ThE uNdP humAN dEvELOPmENT INdEx.

EFFOrT rEQuIrEd *

Des

ign

by: i

code

mon

.com

Europe has held steady with a positive variation of 0.6%, while North America has enjoyed a considerable increase in its BCI average (2.9% over the 2004 value).

**ThE mEThOdOLOgICAL PrOCESS dESIgNEd TO ESTImATE BCI vALuES WhEN ThErE IS A LACk OF INFOrmATION FOr ONE OF ThE INdICATOrS ThAT mAkES uP ThE vALuE CONSISTS OF ThE FOLLOWINg.

a) COuNTrIES ArE CONSIdErEd ON A rEgIONAL BASIS, ANd ONLy ThOSE ThAT ArE IN A SImILAr rELATIvE SITuATION TO ThE COuNTry FOr WhICh INFOrmATION IS LACkINg ArE CONSIdErEd. ThIS ImPLIES ThE ASSumPTION ThAT COuNTrIES ArE SImILAr IN TErmS OF PErFOrmANCE TO NEIghBOurINg COuNTrIES AT A SImILAr LEvEL OF dEvELOPmENT. (COuNTrIES dESIgNATEd “hIgh INCOmE” By ThE WOrLd BANk ArE CLASSIFIEd IN SuB-rE-gIONS, ThuS INCrEASINg ThE TOTAL FrOm 8 TO 15 rEgIONS.)

B) AN AvErAgE OF ThE vALuES FOr ThE mISSINg INdICATOr IS mAdE juST FrOm ThE COuNTrIES IN ThE SAmE rEgION.

c) ThE AvErAgE OF INdICATOrS WITh INFOrmATION IS ESTImATEd FOr ALL ThE COuN-TrIES.

d) ThE ArIThmETICAL mEAN Or AvErAgE IS CALCuLATEd AmONg ThE mEAN vALuES CAL-CuLATEd IN “C” (ONLy AmONg COuNTrIES IN ThE rEgION COrrESPONdINg TO EACh CON-CrETE ESTImATION NEEd).

e) ThE vALuE OBTAINEd IN “d” IS SuBTrACTEd FrOm EACh vALuE OBTAINEd IN “C”, WhICh yIELdS A COrrECTION FACTOr FOr EACh COuNTry.

f) ThE vALuE OBTAINEd IN “B” IS AddEd TO ThE vALuE OBTAINEd IN “E”, WhICh yIELdS A COrrECTION OF ThE rEgIONAL mEAN EIThEr uP Or dOWN IN FuNCTION OF ThE mEAN PErFOrmANCE rEgISTErEd FOr EACh COuNTry, IN ThE TWO INdICATOrS FOr WhICh IN-FOrmATION IS AvAILABLE.

g) ANd LASTLy, ThE vALuE OBTAINEd IN “F” IS ImPuTEd TO ThE COuNTrIES IN ThAT rE-gION ANd IN A SImILAr rELATIvE SITuATION FOr WhICh ThE dATA IN QuESTION IS NOT AvAILABLE.

h) IF AS A rESuLT OF ThE PrOCEdurE OuTLINEd ABOvE ThE INdICATOr ExCEEdS 100 POINTS, ANd AS WE ArE dEALINg WITh A PErCENTAgE, ThE vALuE OF 100 POINTS IS gIvEN AS ThIS IS ThE mAxImum POSSIBLE.

icbotro.indd 1 04/12/2009 11:21:42

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Capricorn Tropic of Capricorn

Equator

Tropic of Cancer

Galapagos

Falklands

(EC)

San Felix I.(CHILE) San Ambrosio I.

(CHILE)

Hawaii

(US)

Heard(AUSTR )

Prince Edward Is.(S AFR)

(AUSTL)

Java

Tasmania

Stewart Is.

Auckland Is.

Macquarie Is.Campbell Is.

Norfolk Is.(AUSTL)

Lord Howe Is.(AUSTL)

(US)Wake

(US)

VIETNAM

PHILIPPINES

MALAYSIA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

AUSTRALIA

NEW ZEALAND

KANAKY

TAIWAN

BRUNEI

SING

APORE

SOLOMON IS.

VANUATU

KIRIBATI

TUVALU

SAMOA

TONGA

NORTHERNMARIANAS IS.

GUAM

MARSHALL IS.

PALAU

MICRONESIA

TIMOR LESTE

NAURU

INDONESIA

MONGOLIA

NEPAL

I N D I A

BHUTAN

SRI LANKA

BANGLADESH

BURMA

THAILAND

LAOS

CAMBODIA

C H I N A

KYRGYZ.UZBEKISTAN

TAJIK.

AFGHANISTAN

PAKISTAN

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

S A U D IA R A B I A

I R A N

OMAN

YEMEN

QATAR

KAZAKHSTAN

KUWAIT

BAHREIN

DJIBOUTI

TURKMENISTANTURKEY

IRAQISRAEL

LEB.

JORD.

SYRIA

GEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERB.

PALES.

SAHARA(WESTERN)

ANGOLA

CAPE VERDE

UGANDAMALDIVES

LIBERIA

SPAIN

PORTUGAL

FRANCE ITALY

GERMANYCZECH REP.

AUSTRIASWITZERLANDROM

ANIA

BULGARIA

SLOVENIACROATIA

ALB.

GREECEMALTA

MACEDONIA

CYPRUS

LUXEM.

UNITED

KINGDOM

IRELAND

NET

HER

LAN

D

BEL

GIU

M

POLAND

DEN

MAR

K

HUNGARY

NORWAY

SWEDEN FINLAND

ESTONIALATVIALITHUANIA

BELARUS

UKRAINE

MOLDOVA

SERBIAMONT.

SLOVAKIA

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

GRENADA

FRENCH GUIANAGUYANA

SURINAME

BRAZIL

ARGENTINA

PERU

CHILE

BOLIVIA

ECUADOR

Ecuator

URUGUAY

PARAGUAY

COLOMBIA

VENEZUELA

PUERTO RICO

ST. KITTS-NEVIS

GUADELOUPE

ANTIGUA

DOMINICA

ST. LUCIA BARBADOS

ST. VINCENTARUBANETH. ANT.

ALASKAGreenland

CANADA

MEXICO

CUBA

JAMAICA

GUATEMALA

EL SALVADOR

NICARAGUA

COSTA RICA

HONDURAS

DOM

INICAN REP.

HAI

TI

PANAM

A

BAHAMAS

TU

RKS AND CAICOS

ICELAND

BELIZE

FRENCH POLYNESIA

JAPAN

D.P.R. KOREA

KOREA REP. OF

(DEN)

BERMUDA

U.A.E.

TUNISIA

FIJI

99+96

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA99

B-H.

87

62

91

96

97

85

96

91

66

93

98

99+

68

99+

96

92

56

58

9488

71 79

73

97

95

95

97

89

70

99

44

96

93

98

95

81

99

67

68

74

65

76

71

68

77

55

66

77

65

76

75

60

83

89

89 72

80

59

66

79

77

7162

73

71

46

53

59

53

61

60

90

90

82

58

73

59

90

95

98

99

79

88

86

93

7080

82

9592

9498

92

99

98

95

95

96

99

87

95

98

99+

99 99+

99+99+

99+

99+

99+

99+

99+

99+

99

99

9999

9999

99+

98

99

98

9898

9999

99

99+

99

99

99

96

96

9699

68

9394 93

98

8482

98

68

68

98

99

99

99

99+

99+

59

99

99

89

93

58

99+

97

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

CAMEROON

ALGERIA

LIBYA EGYPT

SUDAN CHAD

MALIMAURITANIA

MOROCCO

NIGER

NIGERIA

ETHIOPIA

ERITREA

D.R. CONGO

TANZANIA

KENYA

SENEGAL

GAMBIA

GUINEA60GUINEA BISSAU

SIERRA LEONE

CO

TED

'IVO

IRE

GH

ANA

TOG

OB

ENIN

SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE

GABON

CON

GO

BURUNDI

RWANDA

EQ.GUINEA

NAMIBIA

BOTSWANA

SOUTH AFRICA

SOMALIA

MOZAM

BIQUE

LESOTHO

SWAZILAND

MALAWI

MADAGASCAR

REUNION

MAURITIUS

COMORES

ZAMBIA

ZIMBABW

E

BURKINAFASO

94

9799

99+

96

78

53

93

89

89

76

99+

99

0

20

4060

80

100BCI

PROGRESS

REGRESSION

ACCEPTABLE LEVEL: The following countries had achieved an acceptable level before 2009.

55 58 61 6671

6656 62 67 767168 72 7968 73 73 77

68 7168 6879

6173 7770 70 7168

77 83817874 82908887 8988 89 91

9589 89 89 90 93

8993 95

90 92 9692 92 93 93 95 959594 9494 94 94 9695 96 9696 96 9693 9693 979795 97 97

46

95 979593 96

766565

84 868287

82 85808076 79

5353 53

7591

4456 58 58 59 5959 59 60 6060

LAO PDR

PAPUA NEW GUINEA (*)

NEPAL

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

CAMBODIA

PAKISTAN

MOZAM

BIQUE

UGANDA

MALAW

I

YEMEN

MADAGASCAR

GHANA

ERITREA

KENYA

GUINEA

ZAMBIA

BHUTAN

TOGOTANZANIA

GAMBIA

CAMEROON

INDIABURKINA FASO

SENEGAL

GUATEMALA

COMOROS

BURUNDI

MYANM

AR

BENIN

NICARAGUA

LESOTHO

MAURITANIA

ZIMBABW

E

HONDURAS

SWAZILAND

PHILIPPINES

CÔTE D'IVOIRE

SÃO TOMÉ AND PRINCIPE

MOROCCO

BOTSWANA

EL SALVADOR

CONGO, REP.

CONGO, R. D. (*)

BOLIVIA

SUDAN

GUYANA

ECUADOR

GABON

VANUATU

SURINAME

SAUDI ARABIA (*)

INDONESIA

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

TAJIKISTAN (*)

PERUNAM

IBIA

MALDIVES

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

MEXICO

SOUTH AFRICA

KIRIBATI

TUVALU

VENEZUELA (*)

BRAZIL

CAPE VERDE

EGYPT

PANAMA

PALAU (*)

DJIBOUTI

GRENADA

DOMINICA

TURKEY

BELIZE

VIET NAM

THAILAND (*)

TONGA

TUNISIA

AZERBAIJAN

PARAGUAY

JAMAICA (*)

GEORGIA

ALGERIA

LEBANON

MONGOLIA

SRI-LANKA

COSTA RICA

SAMOA

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC

QATARBULGARIA

NEW ZEALAND (*)

ANGOLA (*)

GUINEA BISSAU (*)

MALAYSIA

ST. VINCENT AND THE

ALBANIA

COLOMBIA

IRAN (*)

NAURU

LIBERIA (*)

TIMOR-LESTE (*)

SIERRA LEONE (*)

CENTRAL AFRICAN REP.

FIJIM

ALIIRAQ

ST. KITTS AND NEVIS

GRENADINES

CHINA (*)

NIUE (*)

NIGER

NIGERIA

AFGHANISTAN (*)

CHADBANGLADESH

ETHIOPIA

RWANDA

MARSHALL ISLANDS (*)

ARGENTINAARMENIA (*)AUSTRALIA (*)AUSTRIA (*)BAHAMASBAHRAINBARBADOSBELARUSBELGIUM

BRUNEICANADA (*)CHILECROATIACUBACYPRUSCZECH REPUBLICDENMARK (*)ESTONIA

FINLANDFRANCEGERMANYGREECE (*)HUNGARY (*)ICELAND (*)IRELANDISRAEL (*)ITALY

JAPAN (*)JORDANKAZAKHSTAN (*)KOREA,REP.KUWAITKYRGYZSTAN (*)LATVIALIBYA (*)LITHUANIA (*)

LUXEMBOURGMALTAMAURITIUSNETHERLANDSNORWAYOMANPOLANDPORTUGAL (*)ROMANIA (*)

RUSSIAN FEDERATION (*)SEYCHELLESSINGAPORE (*)SLOVAKIASLOVENIASPAIN (*)ST . LUCIASWEDENSWITZERLAND (*)

UKRAINE (*)UNITED ARAB EMIRATESUNITED KINGDOM (*)UNITED STATES OF AMERICAURUGUAY

THE COUNTRIES MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) ARE INCLUDED BY USING A METHODOLOGICAL PROCESS DESIGNED TO ESTIMATE THEIR VALUE ON THE CURRENT BCI, BECAUSE THERE IS A LACK OF INFORMATION FOR ONE OF THE INDICATORS THAT MAKES UP THIS VALUE.

The BCI uses an alternative methodol-ogy to register the progress – or lack of progress – towards compliance with the Millennium Development Goals. This index constitutes a new method-ology that complements in numerous respects the human development in-dexes most commonly used.

To reach an acceptable BCI does not imply a high level of social develop-ment. It merely signifies that the coun-try has achieved universal coverage of minimum essential needs that are a prerequisite for advancing towards greater wellbeing. It is a departure point, not a destination.

The InTernaTIonal SecreTarIaT of SocIal WaTch alSo receIveS fundIng andSupporT from The ford foundaTIon and The coalITIon of The flemISh norThSouTh movemenT - 11.11.11.

The conTenTS of ThIS publIcaTIon are The Sole reSponSIbIlITy of SocIalWaTch and can In no Way be Taken To reflecT The vIeWS of The europeanunIon, oxfam novIb, The ford foundaTIon or The coalITIon of The flemIShnorTh SouTh movemenT 11.11.11.

mAdE POSSIBLE ThANkS TO ThE FuNdINg ANd SuPPOrT OF ThE EurOPEAN uNIONANd OxFAm NOvIB.

© ITem 2009, SocIal WaTch, WWW.SocIalWaTch.org phone: +598(2) 902 0490. fax: +598(2) 902 0490 exT 113

BCI LEVEL

REFERENCES

ACCEPTABLE

MEDIUM

LOW

PROGRESS

AND REGRESSIONNO DATA ON EVOLUTION

SIGNIFICANTPROGRESS

SLIGHT PROGRESS

PROGRESS

REGRESSION

NO DATA ON EVOLUTION

STAGNANT

STAGNANT

REGRESSION

MAJOR REGRESSION

VERY LOW

CRITICAL

BASICCAPABILITIES

INDEX2009

icbotro.indd 2 04/12/2009 11:21:46